mr_eob

Wow, Nolasco & Jake have the highest vote. I would've thought Olivo would get more.

It's a sad state of affiars that it's actually thought of as a conspiracy this much. That said, I don't know why it's going down so quickly. That new Gulf of Mexico thing can't be having that big of an impact. Has something else happened in that time that would change things? I mean, it's getting pretty crazy. Some people are thinking we'll be down to $1.15 in three years and saying it totally seriously. http://www.newsobserver.com/104/story/486039.html

:lol

Can I get ammo for the AR-15 at wall-mart? Awesome collection BTW, love the 229 :thumbup

I bet they planed this right after they planned the 911 attacks :whistle You didnt hear this from me though :disguise

CNN: Are Falling Gas Prices a Sneaky Scheme to Help Republicans? Posted by Scott Whitlock on September 15, 2006 - 18:09. In a September 15 report for "The Situation Room," CNN reporter Bill Schneider wondered if the current decrease in gas prices has been timed to help Republicans in the midterm elections. He ominously asked: Schneider: "The drop in prices may last a couple of months, long enough to get through the November election. Could that be what the oil companies want?" Does this mean that high prices in the spring and summer were an attempt to hurt the Republicans? This theme, that oil companies are trying to aid the GOP, was repeated or insinuated throughout the report. In the segment, which aired at 4:40PM, anchor Wolf Blitzer introduced Schneider by noting that a form of smog reducing gasoline will be pulled "as we head into the fall and the November elections." Schneider then prefaced a sound bite from a "oil industry critic" by stating: Schneider: "But this oil industry critic believes that what drove prices up was speculation and a report from a bipartisan congressional investigation may be having an impact." The critic, Tyson Slocum, is a member of Public Citizen, a liberal consumer advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader. The group?s left-wing ideology is not mentioned, the only ID onscreen is of the organization?s name. At this point, Schneider asks the question: Do oil companies want prices down through the midterms? Slocum elaborated for him: Slocum: "Eighty-one percent of their money goes to members of the Republican Party. I cannot say for sure whether or not they are influencing prices to assure that outcome, but it is, I think, more than just a coincidence that we're seeing an easing of prices at a time of running up to a very, very important election." This isn?t the first time CNN has conjured up dark conspiracies involving the GOP and "big oil." And it will undoubtably not be the last http://newsbusters.org/node/7674 Gas prices go up, the big bully oil co's want to rip us off. Gas prices go gown, the crooked GOP wants to steal the elections. Go figure...

Poor guy, he's only human.

I dont know if this is considered a lucid dream or not but Ive been able to make concious decisions in my dreams based on the fact that I know im only dreaming. Its pretty cool, wish I could do it all the time.

I love chubby cox. :lol

The longer we keep the Mets fom celebrating the better.

:lol Is little vito the jewish version of pepito?

Hope to see Nikki Cox somewhere, soon.

Thats just sick :o

http://artpad.art.com/?j5puhhq7bc4 Nice job! Thanx

http://artpad.art.com/?j5puhhq7bc4

ROY!!!

I blame joe for this one tonight, he shoulda brought Tank in the Ninth. I WANT HIM FIRED!!!!! Note: Sorry but the board isnt the same w/out a blame joe thread

Five years after the twin towers fell, and with the legal war on terror still a work in progress, the law's journey from September 11, 2001 to today can be marked by only a few handfuls of milestones. Here they are, in chronological order, showing both the sweep of change and the reality that we still have a long way to go. October 26, 2001 . The day of the passage of the first USA Patriot Act, a sweeping piece of anti-terror legislation that was approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives even as recovery efforts at the World Trade Center and Pentagon were underway. The law, which passed with barely any debate and only a little forethought, dramatically increased the power of law enforcement officials to track suspected terrorists, increased penalties for terror-related crimes, and altered in measurable ways for all Americans the balance between liberty and security. The USA Patriot Act has since been extended and revised and some of its key provisions are still under judicial review. December 11, 2001 Three months to the day after the twin towers fell, federal prosecutors indicted the mentally unstable Zacarias Moussaoui as a conspirator in the attacks on America, even though the lowly al Qaeda operative was sitting in a Minnesota jail on 9/11. It would take over four years ? and countless embarrassments to the government ? before he would get to trial in Virginia. And by the time he did, it was clear that he was not the "20th hijacker" or that he even knew much of anything about the terror plot. He is now serving a life sentence in a maximum-security federal prison, a living example of the government's stubborn insistence on trying to link a man to a crime he did not commit. January 18, 2002 . The day that President Bush signed an executive order excluding captured al Qaeda and Taliban soldiers from the protections of the Geneva Conventions. This decision actually preceded by seven days the now-famous "torture" memo written by then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, who is now the nation's top lawyer. The abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and at other places around the world by U.S. personnel can be traced to this order, and the Bush administration's concomitant policy of employing aggressive interrogation methods in order to extract information from captured suspects. Last week, however, the U.S. military conceded that such "alternative procedures" did not work and would be abandoned as official Defense Department policy, even as President Bush told the nation that he intends to continue to allow CIA and other covert operatives to continue to employ the practices. June 10, 2002 . The day that then-Attorney General John Ashcroft announced the arrest of Jose Padilla as a "dirty bomb" suspect. Ashcroft dramatically interrupted a trip to Russia to beam back to us via satellite news of Padilla's arrest. But it quickly became clear that Padilla was nowhere near the threat the attorney general had made him out to be. Nonetheless, despite being a U.S. citizen, and in spite of a lack of evidence against him, Padilla was quickly designated by President Bush as an "enemy combatant" and held by our military for years, incommunicado and without facing charges. Last year, reluctantly, after a series of adverse court rulings, the White House quickly transferred Padilla to civilian control, where he now faces relatively minor charges in Florida. So call this day the day the government began to lose its credibility when accusing terror suspects of crimes. July 15, 2002 . The day that John Walker Lindh, the so-called "American Taliban," pleaded guilty in a Virginia federal court to aiding the Taliban in its fight against the Northern Alliance. An early "face of terror" stateside following 9/11, Lindh wasn't much help to the Taliban. When discovered by American troops, Lindh was in a prison in Afghanistan in December 2001. He never fired a shot in anger at American troops or anyone else. Yet he was overcharged by overzealous prosecutors and after a series of adverse rulings by his judge, Lindh decided to take a plea. He was later sentenced to 20 years in prison, a sentence that today seems outrageously harsh given the length of other sentences handed out to terror suspects who were accused of similar or even greater crimes. January 30, 2003 . The day U.S. District Judge William G. Young sentenced to life in prison Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber" who failed to blow up an airplane when he couldn't light his shoe on fire. Judge Young's comments to Reid, after Reid pledged his fealty to Osama Bin Laden in court, still stand as some of the most eloquent in explaining how many Americans feel about al Qaeda and both its leaders and followers. Judge Young told Reid: "You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice. So war talk is way out of line in this court. You're a big fellow. But you're not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders. " June 28, 2004 . The day the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the first time since the terror attacks on America that the high court had spoken directly about a legal issue raised by the attacks. This is the day that then-Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor famously declared that "a state of war is not a blank check" for presidential power. This is the day the court declared that both citizen- and non-citizen terror detainees could challenge in federal court their detention. This ruling set the stage for the Hamdan ruling two years later and marked the first major legal setback in the White House's war on terrorism. December 16, 2005 . The day The New York Times first reported on the existence of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program, which involves the secret wiretapping of communications within and without the U.S. without a prior court order. The program, which President Bush had authorized in 2002, represents and end run around both Congress and the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act, which had been set up a generation ago to allow in certain circumstances for special surveillance measures. The legal and political debate over the future contours of the NSA program promises to be one of the biggest stories worth following as we enter year six of the war on terror. June 29, 2006 . The day the United States Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's latest efforts to come up with rules governing military tribunals for terror detainees. If there had been any ambiguity about where the high court stood on the war on terror after its Hamdi ruling in 2004, the court's majority in Hamdan came down squarely against the administration's efforts to try detainees without providing them certain fundamental due process rights. Also, the court's majority declared that the nation was bound to treat the detainees under Geneva Conventions' rules. The decision dealt the White House a significant legal and political blow ? and made visible for the world the split among governmental branches ? and set the stage for last week's big White House announcement about the status of the detainees. September 6, 2006 . The day President Bush announced that some of the most important terror leaders in the world, including 9/11 masterminds Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheik Mohammed, had been transferred to the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay for trial by military tribunal. The president then upped the day's ante by calling upon Congress to agree to the administration?s proposed rules to try the men. By bringing the dangerous men in from the cold, the White House placed enormous pressure on the legislative branch to quickly come up with a set of rules that could both satisfy judicial review and also quickly generate the sorts of trials the family members of 9/11 victims have been waiting for in their search to bring al Qaeda leaders to justice. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/14/...in2007520.shtml Just a bit bias :whistle

The only safe thing to say is that we have done better than anyone ever imagined.

lol nice I hate the current system of government. I think it's far too conservative and the liberals don't get enough credit for what they do. George Bush is responsible for everything wrong in this country. George Bush is the devil; Dick Cheney is his accomplice. Burn in hell. in Swedish Chef dialect: I hete-a zee coorrent system ooff gufernment. Um de hur de hur de hur. I theenk it's fer tuu cunserfeteefe-a und zee leeberels dun't get inuoogh credeet fur vhet zeey du. Geurge-a Boosh is respunseeble-a fur iferytheeng vrung in thees cuoontry. Bork bork bork! Geurge-a Boosh is zee defeel; Deeck Cheney is hees eccumpleece-a. Boorn in hell. :lol Please note that my statement was for presentation purposes only and does not necessarily reflect attitudes or ideals that I have. Love it :lol

Men are more intelligent than women, claims new study By BEN CLERKIN & FIONA MACRAE Last updated at 13:38pm on 14th September 2006 It is research that is guaranteed to delight men - and infuriate the women in their lives. A controversial new study has claimed that men really are more intelligent than women. The study - carried out by a man - concluded that men's IQs are almost four points higher than women's. British-born researcher John Philippe Rushton, who previously created a furore by suggesting intelligence is influenced by race, says the finding could explain why so few women make it to the top in the workplace. He claims the 'glass ceiling' phenomenon is probably due to inferior intelligence, rather than discrimination or lack of opportunity. The University of Western Ontario psychologist reached his conclusion after scrutinising the results of university aptitude tests taken by 100,000 students aged 17 and 18 of both sexes. A focus on a factors such as the ability to quickly grasp a complex concept, verbal reasoning skills and creativity - some of they key ingredients of intelligence - revealed the male teenagers had IQs that were an average of 3.63 points higher. The average person has an IQ of around 100. The findings, which held true for all classes and levels of parental education, overturn a 100 year consensus that men and women average the same in general mental ability. They also conflict with evidence that girls do better in school exams than boys. But Prof Rushton, who was born in Bournemouth and obtained his doctorate in social psychology from the London School of Economics, argues that the faster maturing of girls leads to them outshining boys in the classroom. And since almost all previous data showing an absence of difference between the sexes was gathered on schoolchildren, the gender difference could easily have been missed. 'It looks like up until late adolescence, the females have the advantage over males because they mature faster, which masks the underlying difference, he said. Although experts have accepted that men and women differ mentally, with males averaging higher on tests of 'spatial ability' and females higher on verbal tests, it was assumed the differences averaged out, leaving no difference in overall intelligence. Prof Rushton believes the differences are directly linked to brain size, with other studies showing men having slightly bigger brains than women. 'We know that men have larger brains, even when you take into account larger body size,' said the researcher. 'That means there are more neurons. The question is what these neurons are doing in a man - and they probably have an advantage in processing information.' It is thought the difference may date back to the Stone Age, with women seeking out men who are more intelligent than them in a bid to pass on the best genes to their children. 'Some people have suggested it evolved because women prefer men who are more intelligent than they are for husbands,' said the professor. 'Just as they prefer men who are taller than them, they also prefer a male who is a little ahead of them in IQ.' Critics claim Prof Rushton's results could have been skewed by the inclusion of more test results from females than form males. Prof Rushton, who four years ago triggered a scientific row by claiming intelligence and behaviour are influenced by race, with blacks being more likely to be involved in crime and Asians having a greater chance of high IQs, however, stands by his results. 'These are unpopular conclusions,' he said. 'People should not be made to feel afraid to study controversial issues. 'We have the right to find the truth. One should really look at the facts.' His work appears to confirm British research which showed men have bigger brains and higher IQs than women, which may explain why chess grandmasters and geniuses are more likely to be male. The analyses of more than 20,000 verbal reasoning tests taken by university students from around the world revealed that women's IQs are up to five points lower than men's . Women needn't feel despondent, however, as the scientists believe women can achieve just as much as men - as long as they work harder. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

? What are those?

Last I checked he was shoveling down the Viagra pills. At least the man is getting some, something you probably wouldnt be too familiar with :whistle

Great post man. Olbermann is nothing but an asswipe. yeah, I wonder how you feel about Limbaugh & Hannity & the crew on the other side. All wonderful Amercans I'm guessing. Hey, you're pretty smart for a lib. Good Job!!! :thumbup

"Ground Zero" is 16 vertical acres of some of the most valuable commercial real estate in the world. Millions of square feet of commercial space was lost. It is a multi-billion $ spae that is co-opted betwen the Port Authority and private ownership. What to build there is a highly charged, emotional issue that was debated for years between government agencies, private companies and the tens of thousands of survivors and relatives of the killed. Yes, some initial designs were presented by the LMDC relatively soon after the diaster, but all were rejected, either in whole or in part. The construction of the new highrises, "reflecting pool" and all other reconstruction are parts taken piecemeal from other proposed designs. As for Olbermann, his position simply uses emotionalism as it's guiding motivation without granting consideration to any other myriad issues. Actually, it's somewhat insulting that he would pander to people's heatstrings by grossly oversimplifying one of the most complex legal, commercial and bureaucratic issues the country has had to deal with. Should we have filled in Pearl Harbor and made it a monolithical memorial instead of keeping it as a functioning military complex, even decades after WWII? Don't get sucked into Olbermann's trap. Great post man. Olbermann is nothing but an asswipe.